Q: What is the procedure of e-filing in Supreme Court?

Ans: Procedure of e-filing in Supreme Court: E-filing of cases by any Advocate-on-Record or Petitioner-in-person has now been made possible.

The program developed by National Informatics Centre is user friendly. The official website of the Supreme Court provides detailed step by step Guidelines, frequently asked questions and e-manual for e-filing. Further, the payment of prescribed court fees and printing charges at 1.50 Rs. per page can be paid through any Visa /Master card issued by certain specified banks.

For the purpose of e-filing, all Advocate-on-Record have been given a password by the Registry of the Supreme Court. This password can be changed by Advocate-on-Record by accessing the website.

Petitioner-in-person is required to submit proof of his identity such as ration card/ pan card / identity card/ driving license/ voter ID card by scanning the document. The documents such as affidavits and vakalatanamas can also be submitted by scanning and uploading them on the website. Any application / counter / rejoinder / fresh applications/ caveat / additional documents can also be filed through internet, either by Advocate-on-Record or by Petitioner-in-person in a case filed through E-Filing. Modification/ changes can also be made before the matter is finally submitted to the Court.

Further, a unique reference no. is generated for every case. Also, scrutiny to identify any filing defects is also done. The defects found, if any, by the Registry and corresponding Diary no. is communicated over e-mail to the Petitioner-in- person /Advocate-on-Record. The Applicant concerned can remove the defects by accessing the matter over internet, using re-filing option available under e-filing menu.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more